Or as L/Cpl Jack Jones (Clive Dunn) would say, "They don't like it up 'em".

Jacqui gets a taste of her ugly snooper state

There is a marvellous irony about the fact that, last week, MPs discovered just how embarrassing it can be when private information reaches the public domain. First up was the home secretary, pale-faced and tight-lipped after the revelation that her husband had been renting pornographic films at our expense. Overnight, Jacqui Smith had lost dignity and everyone felt free to comment and jeer about the coupleâs attractiveness, sex lives and the state of their marriage. The rest of her expense claims provided more material for outrage or mockery; whether she was claiming for an extremely expensive sink (Â£550) or an extremely cheap bath plug (88p), it was hard to avoid the impression of a senior politician milking the taxpayer in an unseemly and avaricious fashion and looking considerably diminished as a result.

Some MPs privately found her discomfort funny, but the next day the rest of the Commons was faced with the possibility that embarrassing claims of their own were about to surface. It turned out that the details of every MPâs expenses had been copied and leaked and were on sale to the media for an asking price of Â£300,000. The claims had been due to be published officially in the summer, but only after every member had had the chance to delete any details they wished to keep private. The bad news was that both the original and edited versions were now on sale, potentially allowing the rest of us to discover just what nervous MPs didnât want us Full Story

Would be good to see but no doubt it wil not get published in any paper as it would be complicit in an illegal act, if the details had been stolen, however a world wide e-mail from an unknown or dummy address would be good to see, can hear the puckering of rusty bullet holes as I type, followed by terminological inexactitudes being used

Would be good to see but no doubt it wil not get published in any paper as it would be complicit in an illegal act, if the details had been stolen, however a world wide e-mail from an unknown or dummy address would be good to see, can hear the puckering of rusty bullet holes as I type, followed by terminological inexactitudes being used

Click to expand...

isnt there some law about the leaker being protected if it's in the public interest? and if one person can get hold of it, I doubt it will be very long before the whole lot is on wikileaks in any case.

Great idea, designed to protect those with information which might be in the public interest. Sadly so full of conditions and requirements to prove that the information is actually in the public interest, and that no other means of disseminating same, and that the person with the public's interest at heart is actually trying to act in the public's interest, that the Act has been fairly ineffective.

Great idea, designed to protect those with information which might be in the public interest. Sadly so full of conditions and requirements to prove that the information is actually in the public interest, and that no other means of disseminating same, and that the person with the public's interest at heart is actually trying to act in the public's interest, that the Act has been fairly ineffective.

Click to expand...

My Bold, would the request of Â£300k mean it was for personal gain rather than public good, still could be published on an overseas website or publication, remember it has happened before banned publications published out of UK and brought back in

"What I did was within the rules" is the usual retort. Lets face it, it does'nt matter which party they represent they are all playing the expences game and they will fight tooth and nail to protect thier right to do it. Putting this info into the public domain does sound great as it causes lots of embarresment but these people arent going to resign or say sorry for ripping off the taxpayer, they will carry on doing it as long as the taxpayer lets them.

If even Tacqui Jacqui's milking of the husb- sorry, taxpayer, hasn't finished her off â have they got no fcuking shame whatsoever? â you have to hope that a constant trickle of disclosures about her and the rest of the leeches will eventually see this stinking government and their squalid bunch of O2 thieves off once and for all.

Any further control measures they want to impose should be rolled out starting with Ministers, then remainder of govt MPs, then remainder of Parliament, those that will implement it and then ruling party members. I'd like to see them making Dennis Skinner and the like submit their DNA and buy an ID Card, fit black box to their car etc.

Would be good to see but no doubt it wil not get published in any paper as it would be complicit in an illegal act, if the details had been stolen, however a world wide e-mail from an unknown or dummy address would be good to see, can hear the puckering of rusty bullet holes as I type, followed by terminological inexactitudes being used

Click to expand...

My bold: I think Peter Wright set a handy precedent for that issue. Does anyone know a friendly Australian publisher?

So, 'If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear' only applies to the rest of us then?

"What I did was within the rules" is the usual retort. Lets face it, it does'nt matter which party they represent they are all playing the expenses game and they will fight tooth and nail to protect thier right to do it. Putting this info into the public domain does sound great as it causes lots of embarrassment but these people arenât going to resign or say sorry for ripping off the taxpayer, they will carry on doing it as long as the taxpayer lets them.

Click to expand...

Sounds rather like a variation on the excuses given by various Nazis at the Nuremburg Trials.

âI did what I was ordered to doâ has become âthe Parliamentary authorities didnât complain, so who am I to gainsay them?â

Not so long ago that they were defending the practice of whistleblowers and protecting those who did it and those who gave wider distribution of the facts revealed.
Now the disclosures have gotten a bit more personal they are seeing just what harm they can cause. Radical thought but, given my doubts that any better controls will be introduced and positively monitored I rather not know what they get up to. It gets me all stressed and annoyed at its happening and then more annoyed and stresed when I realise that nothing will change. Ignorance would truly be bliss!

Whatever the prognosis; someone, somewhere, appears to be running a highly planned and very well executed campaign to destabilise the current Governments ability to not only look after sensitive information, but of also being capable of living within their own prescribed code of conduct that they intend the unwashed masses to adhere to within their future planned Single Party Political State.